The URL can be used to link to this page

AF-V - 47716, ,._.- , �uu� i c r '""'"'..," _..._._.,.,_ . . �_� � �Il.�.�' (}� �' x°14��i`,�' . hT 1HE 70P OF 11�E TvnNS � nr)�} nn [_-n r�� lifill �F llf- ��Lli�S ,�, �r �� 1 c� � r o� To �o ,� . � • CC1MIdUN1(Y DLVf:t.bf'IAF:JJT DIV � �.y--�----� r � � P{lOTf:CTNE: IN;;PCG'fION SGC. i . � �.. � � �---1 � GITY HALI fFtIULEY 5S4J2 r+w.rf�FN^� nEV, onrr. ----rnec u� ' nvi•�+ov[n �er ` -'--'�'� ,'� Gt � 59!1-1•s:�0 910-I'23 1 3/21/75 1 2 £300 Name f, I�ddr_ess j� -/ /-� Phone �R � �'/� � - /( c Tc �Qs �c°�-� �I�y^/�4s TvA/ UR �5-7/- �!� D $' Legal Lot No. T31oc}; No. Tract or Addn. � Descri_)�t.ion � � 2ook v ie �v' /P /1/�� '-` Variance Request(�); including stated hardshi}�s (attach p].at or survey of proPerty shoa�ing building, variances, etc., where ap��licable) � Meeting Date I Fee S�1' SO. oU Conunents & Recommendations by the Board of Appeals City Gouiicil Action and Date Receipt I�o. �ays, 0 Signature � �� Date �-a2�-%� 0 ' :�URltGf � � �..zt f)f� �','1t�1�' , ,� �'�� AT T�,�: To�� F ,�� T�,�� Af'PL I C�T I Uf� TO B0/1f�D OF 11f'f'Ei�LS ; �, �'`� COMMUf�ITY Of:V[LUPME:�dI DIV. � St �3 f f 12c��o r t) 1 LL'..__�.. l � � PROTC:C1lVE INSP[CTION SE.C. .� , � i ` � �"`-1 � CITY HAI.L FRIDLEY 55a�2 e,u+,ntH nev. uni[ i�noe ur nv��i+Uvc.0 ur i �� '�_'.�• J g1?•SGU.:t45U -i 910-I'23 1 3/21/, S 2 2 i3�0 Staff Comments Board members notified of ineeting by �— �'%� � List members, date notified, and "Yes" or "No" for plans to a�tend hearing. Plan Date To Attend Name Schnabel � �lo Gabel r Plemel Barna ' � Pearson making appeal and the following property owners having property within 200 feet notified: By Whom ' . Name � Date Phone or Mail Notified Mr. & Mrs. Lyle Groth-913 68th Avenue N.E. 7_ 3p ,�„�,� �� Mr. & Mrs. Jacob Kindom-851 Kenneston Drive N.E. Mr. & Mrs. Sherman Hanson-841 Kenneston Drive N.E � • � Mr. & Mrs. Admer Breitzman-811 Kenneston Drive�N. . r. rs. arry e son- ennes on rive .. Mr. & Mrs. Lavern Thompson-751 Kenneston Drive N. . r. rs. r in e ers- ennes on ri . Mr. & Mrs. Richard Budzynski-810 Kenneston Drive .E. � r. rs. ri u mes a- ennes on ri e.. Mi^. & Mrs. Eugene Ammend-750 Kenneston Drive N.E. • r. rs. en a u ois- venue .. Mr•. & Mrs. Joseph Vance-801 68th Avenue N.E. � Mr. & rs. o an ietz- t venue .. , Mr. & Mrs. Charles•Hales-821 68th Avenue N.�. rs. orre a astwa- ennes on rive .. Mr. & Mrs. Nels Nelson-900 Overton Drive N.E. � r. rs. ic ar remer- ve Mrs. Lillian Westin-940 Overton Drive N.E. . i0ver) . . . . �""'�" - ; Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. & & & & & & & Mrs. Mrs . Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. Donald Davis -860 Overton Drive N.E. Donald Nelson-850 Overton Drive N.E. Michael Ivers-830 Overton Drive N.E. Roger Westlund-820 Overton Drive N.E. Roland Knapton-810 Overton Drive N.E. Kenneth McLellan-6749 - Kenneston Drive N.E. Donald Berry-6750 Kenneston Drive N.E. David Dzubay-6749 Jackson Street N.E. w � � OFFICIAL NOTICE CTTY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE APPEALS COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Appeals Commission of the City of Fridley will meet in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Tuesday, August 10�, 1976 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the fo11owing matter: A request for a variance of Section 205.053, 4A, Fridley City Code, to reduce the required front yard setback from 35 feet to 26 feet, to allow the construction of an addition to an existing attached garage located on Lot l, Block 2, Brookvi'ew Terrace Addition, the same being 820 Kenn�ston Drive N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. (Request by Mr. Arlin E. Peters, 820 Kennasto[t Drive N.E, Fridley, Minnesota 55432). Anyone who desires to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. VIRGINIA SCHNABEL CHAIRWOMAN APPEALS COMMISSION Note: The Appeals Commission will have the final action on this request, unless there are objections from surrounding neighbors, the City Staff, or the petitioner does not agree with the Commiss�on's decision. If any of these events occur, the request will continue to the City Council through the Plannning Commission with only a recommendation from the Appeals Comnission. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 820 Kennaston Drive N.E. A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED BY REQUIREMENT: Section 205.053, 4A, front yard setback of 35 feet. Public purpose served by this section of the Code is to a11ow for off-street parking without encroaching on the pu6lic right of way. Also, the aesthetic consideration of the neighborhood to reduce the "building line of sight" encroachment into the neigh6or's front yard. B. STATED HARDSHIP: Need garage space, have no other practical way to go. C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW: 820 Kennaston Drive N.E. is an unusual lot in that its entire fror�t yard is on the street radius. (See enclosed drawing) On a typical lot the proposed addition would be in the side yard, but in this case, it comes closer to the front property line than the required 35' setback. The addition will not be allowed to encroach into the Southerly 6' of the lot due to the presence of a drainage and utility easement. Addition on to the rear of garage would not be a very 'practical' solution because of shifting cars in the garage and the already reduced size of the 6ack yard. Staff feels that the neighbors concerns would be the most important. Staff has no objection to this request. � ND�t� V � � i �� _�� y ... � _��--�� c�+ � f! - �,, _ . , ` _-�� 'aa �E.�.r,�s�.� ,Ae �,��/a� G� .•.•,,�� - ,�.� ��..� � s�.r,�- . ,l�0 � �� !t'�' .,;�,#,�` �� s -.:� :-�.� �a_ � �- =�- 82 d ��q^�, �ir d pr� 4uAjp��- ' ��46N P ��i ✓� K�a�1 �ST�•tJ ��' ��` ; A)OLTH � /I�a,ZT� �6.r , i ��'iC./ � �,�f/L� % � ~ % 6�,�i�c.�� °� �;i� l� G��--�.� � �� G _ � /�� i'�%�� i�J ��,�it� �� . �� CC� d �,�� " �� ' Fridley �ppeals Commission Meeting of Au�ust 10, 197G tabling the request until such dra��ing �as produced. She said i h�rfelt the� undez�stood and felt secure that the petitione•r explained actly hor� he intended to make the proposed addition �rithout an,y drawin .�, they could -•act on it. Mr. Kemper said he thought he really didn't ha to see a plan, and would prefer to act on it. 1dr. Barna said he would along with that. Mr. Plemel asked if they could stipulate that large ees be p2anted. rir. Schmidt said he worked with trees and suggested t would cost bet:aeen $85 to :�?.00, planted. rir. Kemper asked P4r. Hol n if he thought this coulci ' be worked into the la.ndscape plan, and r;r. Ho en replied he thou�ht it could. r:r. Kemper asked where the trees would be p ted, and �Ir. Holden said they would have to be planted ver,y close to th fence. rlr. Barna asked if Mr. Bar;:er would object to the trees being planted n his property, and Mr� Barker said he would be willing to take trees anyw ere ne could get them. He added tl�at his only concern with this whole th' g was that they were going to damage his property b� dping this� and added at he was an appraiser and he knew this. He suggested that if the owners M& I didn'L think it would damage his� property they should pay for appraisal before and after. I� � Mr.. Goldstein and his atto ey stood up and prepared ta Ieave, saying they were ready:to drop the w e thing. rir. Plemel asked them to please reconsider. Mr. Kemper said the pro em that they faced was thai e�ren if the �ppeals Commission �,aas in fav of the variances, I�1r. Goldstein tiiould still have the Planning Corvnission �o go through and then the Gity Cdunci1.�21rs. Schnabel exp],ained the Pl ing Commission would just revie�.* the minutes of this meetir�g, and th City Council would have ariother hearing on it. MOTICN by Pl el, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals C�mmission recommend to C�uncil pproval of the request for variances with the follot:ing stipulations: 1) The U' oc�c plan fo� improvei�ent of the landscat�e (greenery and shrubbery planted n the East� i�;est and South) be implemer_ted, and 2•) The roof design be no igher than th� original buildir_g and the parapet no higher. Upon a voice vote a1I voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. airperson Schnabel informed Mr. Goldstein that this would go before the ty Council on Septe�.:ber 13th. 2. A RE��UEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTIOPI 2Q5.053� �, A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE� TO REDUCE ^iHE REOUIRED FROVT YARD SET3ACK Ft`�Oii 35 FEET TO 2o F�E�', TO ALL(7':iT THE CO3'�'STRUCTIO�' OF Aiti A�DITIOI3 TO AiV EXIS i I�G ATT� �HID GARAGE LOCATr'� ON LOT 1, BIACK 2, BROOKVIEW TEr RACE ADDITIO;a, THE SAt� BEIhG 820 K�iI�ASTON DRIVE N.E., FRIDLEY, P•SIiJiV�SOTA. (Request by Arli.n E. Petersa 820 Kennaston Drive iv.E., Fridley, rlinnesota 55�32)• _ MOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, to open the I'ublic Aearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADI�IIJvISTRATIVF STAFF REP4RT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SFR��I� BY REf�UIftEN:ENT: Section 205.0�3, �tA, front yard setback of 3s feei;. �--- � Fridley Appeals Commission Meet3n� of August 10� 1976 Page 8 � Public purpose served by this section of the Gode is to allow for off-street parking without Encroaching on the public right of way. Also, the aesthetic conside:aticn of the nei�hborhood to reduce tY�e "building line of sight" encroachment into the neighbor'�s front yard. : B. STATED iiARDSHIP: Need garage space� have no other practical way to go. C. AD2�iINISTc'�ATIVE STAFF REVIEW: 820 Kennaston Drive N.E. is an unusual 2ot in that its entire front yard is on the street radius. On a typical Iot the pro�osed addition would be in tne side yard, but in this case� it . co^�°s closer to the front property line than the required 35� setback. The addition will not be allowed to encroach into the Southerly 6' of the lot due to the presence of a drainage and utility easement. Addition on to the rear of garage would not be a very 'practical' solution because of shifting cars in the garage and the already reduced size of the back . yard. Staff feels that the neighbox's concerns would be the most important. Staff has no objection to this request. • Mrs. Arlin Pe�ers stepped forward to present the request. She stated they had a.n existing single car garage and were proposing t.o add another 1=� car garage on. She explained t:�ey would both be used as garages with some storage space. Mrs. Peters said she :�ad a note from the adjacent neighoor stating they had no objections to the addition. A;OTION by Plemel� seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission receive tne noie from *SL s: Loretta PasttJa, 860 Kennsston Drive Id.E. - Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. r:rs. Peters explained they always had one car sitting out now, and in the su.�er there kere usually both cars because of bicycles� lawnmowers, ete.� i.n the eaisting garage. Sne stated they planned to reside and r�roof the house. Chairperson Schnabel asked if there was a City boulevard, and Air. Holden said there k•as a 7' boulevard. She asked if the structure next i�_oor was some considerable dis�ance from the common lot line. Nr. Holden said he didnFt have a verifying survey, but thought the house was bui].t about 20� from the property line. Mr. Kemger commented that seemed�like a lot of room bettaeen structures to him. He said he thought there tyas a visual problem, but there�was a lat of green area and he didn�t think the visual problem would be particularly great. Pir. Barna said 'ce thought there would be plenty of vie�r for safety purposes. 1•ir, Holden sated there would be ab'out 5' of the garage sticking out. h1rs. Peters said they had a boat, snowmobiles, bicycles, etc,, and really needed the space. Sne added they also had two children who were approaching driving age. r10TI0:v by Baxna, seconded by Plemel, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. rir. Br�rna stated the need had been established, and the building line of sight encroachmen� kTouldn't be.that great in his opinion9 so he would be in tavor. ' r:r. Plemel said that since there were no neighbors objecting, he rrould have no - 'Fridley Appeals Commission Aieeting of August 10, 1976 � , objection. PAge 9 2�OTI02J by Barna, seconded by Kemper, that the Appeals Commission grant the request for variance. Upon a voice vote, all vo�ing aye, the motion carried unanimously. A REQUEST FOR A VARIAt�TCE OF THE FRIDLEY GITY CODE, SECTION 115.02, 5s B, TO REDU�E 1^'riL 6 FOOT FEtYCE RE�UIFt�.:�iENT �ROUND S:7I�•�IIPJG POOL� TO 5 F�� Ts TO IAtiJ THE UTILIZATIOId OF AN EXISTTI�IG VER`P3CAL RED:y'OOD FEi�CE, IACATID OTJ LO !�, BLOGK 1, HOLIDAY HILLS SECOND ADDITION, THE SAME BEIAiQ !t3? RICE CREE BLVD. N.E., FRIDLEY� 11IIvPTESOTA. (Request by Danald Gustafson� l�37 Ric Creek Blvd., IJ.E.� Fridley, Ifinnesota 55lt32). . - 2rOTI0N by Kempe seconded b�r Baxna, to apen the Public Heari.ng. Upon a voice vote� all voting �e, the motion caxried unanimously. ADi1INISTRATIVE SZ'A.�'F REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERV Y REQUIRII�fENT: Section 115.02� 5� B, requiring a 6 foot fence around swi i.ng pools. Public purpose served by th requirement is to protect unescorted intruders from the dangers of the pool ea. � B. STATED HARDSHIP: Petitioner sai i�heir fence was a vertical redwood non-climbable fence between 5 to 6 eet in height around the perimeter of the tiack yard and �aas completed befo April 15, 1976 before the ordinance re�uiri:�g :a b foot fence was est�bl�sh . Additionally the peti�ioner states that ti�e neighbors share the feel g-�hat aesthetically 6 foot fences are deterrents to the neighborhood. C. ADMIidISTRATIVE STAF'�' REVIE6J: The existing ver ' cal redUrood, fence surrounding the backyard of l�37 Rice Creek Blvd. was constru ted this past spring before the ordinance cti*ent into effect. The old ordinance required only a!t foot fence. The ne�w ordinance went �nto effect on 2�1ay 1 1970. The new ordinance was writien, in part, because the City felt hat a four foot chain link fence around a pool was not enough of a dete ent to.small children entering the pool area. , This fence is hard to cli.mb because there are no horizontal ots to provide steps. There appear �:o be neighboring fences adjacent to the rth� East and South sides of the fence in question. The proximity of thes fences would appear to rnake it more difficult to scale than�a sing�e fenc . A possible solution, though technical.ly diff.icult, would be to ra.ise � alternate slots of the fence to a six foot height from grade around the entire fence perimeter. These slats would be approximately 6" apart. Several pool building permits have been issued since the new ordinance went into effect, and several existing fences have been altered in order to meet this requirement. Staff's concern in this matter is that the "intent" of the ordinanee is maintained. � 0 • �"�